本文以闡明劉師培的革命思想及其意涵為宗旨。劉師培在政治上的激烈主張和其間的快速轉變，早即引起諸多的關注和揣測。不過，劉氏更值得重視的意義，或另在他的思想的時代特徵和問題性。拙文因此從甲午戰後的「保種」、「保教」和「保國」三說談起，指出這三說逐漸走向以「保國」為尚的變化，以及劉師培在這般思想脈絡中，所提出「完全之人」和「完全之平等」兩項革命追求的意義。 「完全之人」是共和革命者劉師培的理想，側重個人人格的建立；「完全之平等」則是無政府主義者劉師培所期望建立的理想社會，強調制度的建構。梳理這兩項理念的內涵與轉變，將能指出劉師培如何擷取中西思想資源（包含中國傳統政治「公」與「均」的理念，和西方的盧梭《民約論》與無政府主義），來面對中國歷來所關切的「君權專制」和「貧富不均」兩大難題，與近代中國重新界定「國」（政治）和「教」（倫理）的需要。同時，這般討論也有助於彰顯「忠」之為政治倫理在清末民初所面臨的衝擊，近代中國「國家」、「政治」和「倫理」理念的變化，以及近代中國思想上政治和倫理權威危機的具體樣貌和深度。

Liu Shipei was a modern Chinese revolutionary renowned for his fast shifting political commitments. Liu, however, has attracted historians’ attention mostly because, by looking into his intellectual trajectory, one can better understand the searches, visions, problems, and difficulties of his contemporaries. Following earlier historical explorations, this essay examines Liu’s revolutionary thought and its implications. My discussion begins with the calls for “protecting the race” (baozhung 保種), “protecting the teachings” (baojiao 保教) and “protecting the nation” (baoguo 保國) after the Sino-Japanese war of 1894, which in the end culminated into emphasizing “protecting the nation” as the first priority. After situating Liu in this context of protecting and redefining the meanings of race, the teachings and the nation, I study in particular Liu’s ideas of “complete person” (wanquanzhiren 完全之人) and “complete equality” (wanquanzhipingdeng 完全之平等). The former signifies Liu’s republican revolutionary ideal personality, i.e., the embodiment of both public and private morality, whereas the latter, in contrast, stands for Liu’s anarchist ideal social arrangement and reflects his novel concern for society rather than the character of the citizen. Explicating the contents of these two ideals and the process by which the ideal of “complete person” gave way to “complete equality,” this essay has illuminated that Liu mobilized both Chinese and Western sources in answering traditional Chinese concerns against despotism and inequality as well as modern Chinese needs for redefining the nation (politics) and the teachings (ethics). In short, Liu first appealed to the traditional Chinese ideal of “publicness” and Rousseau’s idea of social contract for achieving the political pursuit of “publicness” and later connected the traditional Chinese ideal of equality to Western anarchism in order to realize the traditional Chinese economic pursuit of equality for all. By disclosing Liu’s revolutionary ideas and their implications, one could not only identify Liu’s historical significance but also understand the challenges for the idea of loyalty in modern China, the changes in the ideas of “nation,” “politics” and “ethics” in modern Chinese intellectual history, and the depth of the crisis of authority of modern Chinese political and ethical thinking.